Tuesday, October 26, 2010

I'll just add one thing to Justice Aaron's opinion in this case, which is both short (a dozen double-spaced pages) and spot on.

When a vexatious litigant files a lawsuit pro per in violation of a prefiling order that expressly precludes her from doing so without permission of the chief judge, that person has committed a contempt of court. Even if, as here, she later obtains an attorney to represented, she's still in contempt. I think it'd be pretty surprising if the law was that this contemptous conduct could benefit the transgressor -- for example, here, by making her complaint timely (i.e., within the statute of limitations). So even beyond the words of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which say that such lawsuits shall indeed be dismissed, I'm not at all sympathetic to the view of the plaintiff here. You can't toll the limitations period through deliberately contemptuous conduct.